This is a follow up presentation on what the University Honors Program decided to do when it comes to selecting an e-portfolio platform and why.

1. University Honors Program
June 20, 2008

2.  e-Portfolio & Digital Identity Conference
 The University Honors Program’s e-portfolio
requirement
 e-portfolio software selection

3.  Evolution of the e-Portfolio
 The emergence of the digital self
 Web 2.0 & technological products

4. Working Portfolio Presentation Portfolio
Summative assessment Formative assessment
Assessment of Learning Assessment for learning
A standardized checklist A reflective story of deep
of skills learning
Portfolio as process Portfolio as product
Past Present Future

5.  Authenticity involves creativity and
ownership of the medium
 The story evolves from the four key pillars of
lifelong learning
 Knowing the learner
 Planning for learning
 Understanding how to learn
 Evaluating learning

6. WEB 1.0 WEB 2.0
 DoubleClick  Google AdSense
 Ofoto  Flickr
 Akamai  BitTorrent
 mp3.com  Napster
 Britannica Online  Wikipedia
 personal websites  Blogging
 evite  upcoming.org and EVDB
 domain name speculation  search engine optimization
 page views  cost per click
 screen scraping  web services
 publishing  participation
 content management systems  wikis
 directories (taxonomy)  tagging (quot;folksonomyquot;)
 stickiness  syndication

9. Burning Questions:
 What is the University Honors Program’s
vision for the e-Portfolio Project?
 What do we want in an e-portfolio?
 What software to use?

10. Establish a best practice system that engages
students in establishing a life-long digital
identity that is actively reflective of their
curricular, developmental, and professional
learning in the University Honors Program at
the University of Cincinnati

11.  Students develop a sense of identity in a digital format
 Integrate curricular learning through student experiences
 Establish learning map for professional and personal
development and growth
 Showcase and reflect on learning opportunities through
one or more of the thematic areas of the University
Honors Program (Community Engagement, Global
Studies, Leadership, and Research/Creative Arts)
 Establish a comprehensive system of assessment in
creating an accurate portrait of the Honors student
population and measure of programmatic progress

12.  Focus groups and on-line survey of Honors
students developing portfolios
 E-portfolio survey
 Software Solution at Lassell College
 Live Demonstrations

13.  Conducted focus group discussions with
students who have built an e-portfolio in the
Honors 101 course during fall 2007 and winter
2008 quarters
 The students did not feel a personal
connection to the work they were doing using
Blackboard
 Students expressed the need for a tool that
allows them to creatively express themselves
through the e-portfolio

14.  64 respondents, representing 7 colleges
 Findings consistent with the focus group
 Beginning to see the importance of an e-
portfolio as augmenting student learning

15.  Further develop opportunities to bring about
forced reflections to better translate the
experience
 Need to offer opportunities for feedback
among instructor, peers
 Further develop the connection between the
Honors experience with the academic
program through the e-portfolio
 A change in e-portfolio software may spark
higher reflection

16.  Allow the owner to create multiple portfolios
 Allow the ability to personalize/create pages,
templates
 Embed media and other sources
 Offers the opportunity to search among
portfolios based on key terms
 Provides information on when a portfolio was
last updated
 Allow the owner to share the portfolio by
offering a URL

17.  Survey sent to college association listserves
 Focused on ease of student and faculty use of
the e-portfolio product
 9 institutions responded, but lots of inquiries
 Survey illustrated the growing trend to move
towards the technology

18.  Presented case study at an e-portfolio
conference at Framingham State College in
February 2008
 E-Portfolio system intended to encourage
reflection, shape to the student experience
 Conducted a selection process similar to the
2005 UC e-portfolio committee
 Helped narrow the list of potential vendors to
three:
 TaskStream’s Learning Achievement Tools (LAT)
 FolioTek
 Nuventive’siWebfolio

19.  TaskStream’s Learning Achievement Tools
(LAT)
 FolioTek
 Nuventive’s iWebfolio

20.  Solid, robust structure
 Students are able to view the rubric
 Offers a single sign-on through Blackboard
 Got the impression that showcase portfolios
cannot be assessed and reported
 Complex to navigate
 Once submitted, the student cannot update a
class portfolio

21.  Immediate customer service
 Presents information in a logical order
 The form of assessment is a display of
evidence
 Too many mouse clicks, lists
 Admin users are not free to make structural
changes on-the-fly
 Showcase portfolio development is a
separate process

22.  Offers more storage space
 Allows users to create multiple portfolios
 Offers multiple templates, libraries for
various rubrics
 Offers owner to share portfolios to external
users via an Internet URL
 Built in user feedback

23.  LiveText
 Currently used by the College of Applied Science
 Able to embed media in the page
 Structure not flexible enough for creativity
 Challenging to share portfolio with external users
 Web 2.0 Tools
 Very loosely structured
 Will bring about challenges for feedback and
assessment in the long run

24.  Use Nuventive’s iWebfolio product, beginning
with the fall 2008 incoming class
 Create templates for each of the thematic
areas of the University Honors Program
 Offer students using Blackboard the option
to purchase an iWebfolio account

25.  Thoughts?

26. University Honors Program
June 20, 2008